I like the idea where she argues accessibility is a process, not a product. She expands on this idea by talking about examples of people who quickly apologize for their inability to provide access to certain accommodations because of their shortcomings in technological prowess. I think these excuses aren't acceptable when they happen so often across so many platforms.

I do not understand why Reddit does not allow alt text. Instagram has had this feature since before they were acquired by Facebook. When comparing Reddit and Instagram, Instagram likely has more photos and videos (I am guessing) percentagewise and count-wise than Reddit and yet Reddit still chooses not to allow people to include alt-text. The issue may surround inaccuracy. Instagram allows the alt text to be determined by the people, and this means that anyone can put anything in the alt text, no matter how much it differs from the photo. At the same time, it would be difficult to regulate what constitutes an accurate description of a photo. Leaving it up to the users might also be considered a disadvantage to blind people and alt-text users, but not having the feature at all is an even greater disservice to those people in my opinion. My question for the future would be, can we use AI to decipher the contents of the image and write an accurate description of the image, leaving the alt-text process completely out of the hands of the user, and allowing for a more inclusive universal design?

What kind of scenarios are there where people are scanning QR codes unnecessarily or haphazardly? The only time I use QR codes are when I need to scan the menu at a restaurant or if an event or a business would like me to get to a specific website via QR code to access a survey or something of that nature. While this scam is important to note and keep in mind for the future, it seems like the plausibility of people falling for this scam is lower than other scams.

An additional privacy violation is when companies are warranted to provide sensitive data to their respective government for ongoing case. The parties complicit to this privacy violation can be both the government and the company that has allowed the breach of privacy.

Allowing news networks to use AI tools as common practice without verifying information can cause dissemination of misinformation because AI tools like ChatGPT come up with misinformation. ChatGPT cannot compute mathematical operations, and cannot verify the facts it presents. Although ChatGPT's learning model gains it knowledge from reliable sources, it still tends to come up with its own data and supplementary information outside of the reliable sources. My guess would be that AI tools use pattern recognition to not only structure their answers to best fit the user, but they also use this pattern recognition to create sources and information that is not factual, but mimics the sources they already gained knowledge from.

This process is done via machine learning (it can be done through machine learning or algorithmically). The process of clustering may allow the application to recommend more social media posts akin to their liking. Social media data can also be used to recommend other people in your social circle to connect with, further engaging users to interact with the social media application.

I agree with the justifications that Twitter made with the Trump's tweets he made and the consequences our society faced as a result of this tweet. Twitter clearly showed how he made a direct influence on the January 6th attack. I think the severity of Trump's punishment (on Twitter) was fair, given the extent of which he propagated the false claims of election fraud. The fact that he explicitly said he would not be attending the Jan 20th inauguration is appalling to me.

I think there are two types of authenticity we are discussing in this situation. 1) The truthfulness of Trump's tweets, and 2) If Trump was the person who wrote these tweets or not. I think the 2nd one matters less in comparison to the first, because as a presidential candidate, not everything the candidate releases will be exactly in his/her words. And at the same time, it does not remove him from the blame for the tweets he releases so he is still responsible for them. Although, whether his tweets are truthful is very important because presidential candidates have incredible influence as authority figures and they should be called out and in fact, reprimanded for misleading the general public through any medium in which they decide to release misinformation or false statements.

This Wikipedia talks about Web 1.0, how it compares to Web 2.0, and certain features Web 1.0 had that carried over to 2.0 (like a comment section formatted as a guestbook page). It is interesting how our web pages have transformed into spaces packed full with as much data as possible in one space. Like how we have comment sections on each area that someone would want to comment on. Whereas in Web 1.0, there was a completely separate page for comments to be shared for visitors that came across the site. Websites have been hyper-designed so that every possible feature someone can access will be at one's fingertips.

I have never heard of this website before but it's shocking how certain extreme platforms are considered not be extreme enough. Users of these platforms take it further and further, with no regard for the ethical impact of these websites. Social media has such free rein it is unnerving. At least in real life it is easier to call things out but online, anonymity fuels the chaos.

This article highlights the sheer ignorance of how people market themselves on social media. Like mentioned in this chapter previously, all data is a simplification of reality. The white woman's profile picture shows herself with two young African kids in Malawi, a country in Africa. She uses this picture as way to show how charitable and good-hearted she is. Meanwhile, there are now pictures of these kids on the internet even though their parents did not consent to this (according to the description of the article in this textbook). Additionally, while the idea of helping kids in Africa is not entirely wrong, our history and the trend of white people from America volunteering in Africa for a week or a month has some negative implications associated with it. One of these implications comes from the history of slavery. Slavery was common in the US for a long time and the ramifications of slavery are still rampant. The idea that black people are considered to be lesser than has not been erased from our society. One could say that the volunteer work in Africa is something white Americans do because they view Africa as poor and lesser than. Africa is not poor. These kinds of beliefs and ideas are what make our global society hostile and incongruent.

This is why having diversity in the workforce, especially in the tech industry, is so important. Having different groups of people advocate for an all-inclusive design will allow for users to have a better experience.

This source does not seem to be reliable. This is a twitter account showing the current percentage of world that has been vaccinated at least once with a COVID vaccine. This account is seemingly run by someone who likes to create bots. They do not mention where they get their data from in their most recent posts or in their bio, although they have link the CDC in their bio, an American organization that does not organize worldwide data but rather focuses on disease in America. So, if that is where this person is getting their data from, it might not be entirely reliable. This is an interesting concept, but not enough context or references to data that would allow me to accept this account as factual information.

I have never heard of this kind of a bot before. This concept is very scary to me and is almost the opposite of what I typically see online. Normally, popular social media users, content creators, and celebrities fall into a trap where they feel like some of their followers are attempting to create an unhealthy parasocial relationship. Meanwhile, this guy is almost inviting a parasocial relationship by claiming he is AI-created, and that anything done to him, or any bond created with him is okay because he "is" a computer, and nothing can hurt him.

From my research, it seems like the result of a harmonious society comes from individuals realizing their humanity, becoming one with heaven "tian" by following the order of heaven (the source of divine authority). Individuals going through this transformation then extend to / result in harmony in the family and the community. Although the performing of certain traits as listed in this quote may also contribute to a harmonious society. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

Even in 2017, tech leaders were definitely thinking about the ethics of tech on society. There were laws that regulate what tech companies can and cannot do, and while it was not as robust as it is now, he cannot say there was ZERO consideration. There was a great deal of consideration, although those companies may not have held the same ethics standards to new technology as they did to old tech. That could be for many reasons, one being because that new technology had not been released to the public yet and they were still testing and studying the limits of the technology and how unethical the tech can get. Also, he was probably talking to engineers and developers, who may not have a full understanding of the ethical implications of new technology. While they are partly responsible for it since they are the ones inventing it, the leaders of the company have a greater responsibility.